I keep seeing the statement "many women get pregnant and find out their rubella titres are low.". How many is many? Is that based n anything other than a few women have come on Mdc and said this happened to them?

This study shows 8.8 percent of women test low for rubella titres.

Interestingly, younger women were more likely to test low than older women. I do wonder if that is because younger women were more likely to be vaxxed, while older women are more likely to have had the disease?

"Of 159,046 prenatal specimens, 88.3% (n=140,473) were screened for rubella immunity. In total, 8.8% of specimens tested negative for rubella IgG. Younger women (23.2% of women younger than 20 years of age versus 4.7% of women between 35 and 39 years of age; P<0.001)"

I have no issues with kids who are at risk from MMR getting a vaccine, if their parents and doctor think it is warranted.

I do think mumps and rubella should be diseases one has in childhood - mostly for the life-long immunity. There has been an upswing in mumps cases in colleges recently and many women go to their first prenatal appointment to find out their titres for rubella are low. For me, it makes more sense for most of the population to get these VPDs in childhood rather than risk their immunity wearing off and getting them in adulthood (when they are far less safe).

I don't believe medical decisions for the masses should be made based on concerns for the few. Many pro-vaxxer don't either. Some will admit that certain subgroups of people should not be vaccinated (people we often do not know are a subgroup until they have a reaction) - yet we are not throwing out the vaccine program for a subgroup. Likewise, we shouldn't make vaccine choices for a subgroup.

As I know you are aware, my youngest is prone to pneumonia. I do not think everyone should run out and vaccinate themselves because she is prone to pneumonia. It is possible she belongs to a subgroup of people that should be vaccinated for certain things (pneumonia, for one), but no one else should have to assume the risks of vaccinating (well, her parents may choose to ) because of her health profile.

Taximom talks all the time about how terrifying it was to see her child seizing with a vaccine reactions. I'm sure it was. I've seen enough seizures to know the feeling of helplessness and fear, and I wasn't even watching my kid seizing.

You know what else is terrifying? Watching your kid lie limp in a hospital bed while the nurses use mechanical suction to clear out her nose and throat so she can breathe. Kids hate suction. They struggle and thrash and scream. When a stranger in a face mask comes at your kid's nose with a vacuum that's attached to the wall and the thing is making a loud noise, the kid should struggle. Or at least wake up and cry. They should not just lie there, and then keep lying there while you try to figure out if that helped by watching the monitors like a hawk because nothing the kid is doing is giving you any indication that her o2 sats are going up because she's too lethargic to move while your other kid sits traumatized in the waiting room down the hall wondering if her sister is dying because school-aged children aren't allowed on the pediatric floor during RSV season unless they are patients. That's the result of my kid being too sick. That's what terrifies me. That was RSV, but it could happen again, and it could be flu, or a sinus infection we didn't catch in time, or anything that causes thick mucous, like pertussis or mumps.

Every time we talk about vaccine risks, Taxi unleashes a tirade at anyone who doesn't demonstrate proper respect for the terrifying, damaging nature of her son's vaccine reaction. If we're going to talk about bringing back VPDs, I am absolutely going to unleash my own tirade about the terrifying, damaging nature of my daughter's complications from disease.

It is not OK with me when people suggest that my beloved and precious child should face increased risk of once again lying there unmoving while someone snorks out her lungs and then stares at the O2 monitor to make sure that worked. It is not OK with me when people suggest that everyone should get mumps except my kid, and ignore the fact that being surrounded by repeated outbreaks puts her at higher risk. You don't want to vaccinate? Fine, but don't go wanting things that will make my kid sick. MY KID, the most important one to me, the one who could potentially die from mumps, the one who will not go to school in an outbreak of mumps (or measles, pertussis, or influenza, though we are past the years when I kept her home because of outbreaks of ear infections and the common cold) lest her vaccinations turn out to not be enough protection from bad lung things, MY KID who absolutely cannot be permitted to get mumps. It does not benefit your kid if mine gets mumps, or if your neighbor's kid get mumps, or anyone else for that matter. Why would you ignore risks to kids like mine and make a proposal like mumps should be a common childhood illness again? Why? Why do you not care? I don't want to see your children suffer. Why are you so willing to see my children suffer?

I don't expect everyone to run out and get vaccinated so that my kid stays healthy. She's doing pretty well these days, partly because we've managed to limit her illnesses so that her lungs haven't built up a lot of damage from repeated pneumonias and wheezing. There's a good chance that, if she stays healthy, she'll outgrow her asthma. I don't expect you to help us, but in the name of all things holy, please don't propose that actually a bunch of diseases that would really hurt my dd but are relatively uncommon now should come back and there should be outbreaks all the time and they should be super-common. That crosses the line from "not taking risks for yourself on behalf of anyone else" to "taking risks that you know for sure would hurt a bunch of people."

Part of the case for vaccination is that diseases are bad for people. And they are really bad for people like my dd. If you do not think that diseases are bad, and you think that having those diseases come back and be bad for MY CHILD would somehow be good for society (which really makes me wonder if, by "good for society" you really mean that society would be better off without kids like mine), I find myself compelled to yell a lot. And I don't really care what you think is safe for your kid who is prone to pneumonia, your kid is NOT MINE, and it's evident that our risk assessment is quite different.

And they are really bad for people like my dd. If you do not think that diseases are bad, and you think that having those diseases come back and be bad for MY CHILD would somehow be good for society (which really makes me wonder if, by "good for society" you really mean that society would be better off without kids like mine), I find myself compelled to yell a lot. And I don't really care what you think is safe for your kid who is prone to pneumonia, your kid is NOT MINE, and it's evident that our risk assessment is quite different.

Bolding mine.

First I want your kids to drop dead and now I think society would be better off if kids like yours did not exist (hmmm…despite having one kid like yours?)

Yeah, I have no idea what's going on with your risk assessment. Believe me, it has caused me some pretty serious moments of consternation. But whatever. Your kid's condition is different from my kid's condition and apparently, repeated exposure to respiratory illnesses and illnesses that cause pneumonia as a symptom or a sequel doesn't concern you the way it concerns me.

What's good for your kid is up to you. Mumps is quite definitely bad for my kid. Being surrounded by a mumps outbreak would make me VERY concerned about her health and safety. You're proposing that mumps should again become widespread, and that's why I'm working very hard not to use a lot of profanity and questioning your stance on public health. Literally, you are suggesting that my dd be exposed to something that could KILL her on an annual or more frequent basis. If you don't want her to die, I have no idea what you think that would accomplish.

Over the past month, a number of anti-vax posters have made it abundantly clear that in their eyes, my children's genetic predisposition to asthma, ecxema, and allergic rhinitis makes them worth no one's concern.

Seems to me you are putting words into a lot of people's mouths--including labeling them "anti-vax." If people have been so "abundantly clear," perhaps you should be quoting them.

yes, Kathy, I feel pretty secure about my dd's exposure to VPDs *right now*. Your proposal that mumps and rubella should once again be common childhood diseases is one that would destroy that security. I enjoy the double protection of having my family vaccinated AND knowing that exposure is unlikely. Why would you want to take one of those away from my child?

yes, Kathy, I feel pretty secure about my dd's exposure to VPDs *right now*. Your proposal that mumps and rubella should once again be common childhood diseases is one that would destroy that security. I enjoy the double protection of having my family vaccinated AND knowing that exposure is unlikely. Why would you want to take one of those away from my child?

Are you somehow concerned that a couple of posters' ideas will suddenly become public health policy? No one is taking anything away from anyone.

I'm not concerned, though I am FURIOUS that anyone would suggest that VPDs should make a big comeback and that should be seen as a good thing.

Let me put it this way: Suppose I suggested that all newborns should be injected with a high dose of thimerosol because I believed it to be not only harmless, but beneficial. In this hypothetical situation, how would you feel about me?

I'm not concerned, though I am FURIOUS that anyone would suggest that VPDs should make a big comeback and that should be seen as a good thing.

Let me put it this way: Suppose I suggested that all newborns should be injected with a high dose of thimerosol because I believed it to be not only harmless, but beneficial. In this hypothetical situation, how would you feel about me?

I don't feel any differently about you than I have all along. You can suggest anything you want, it doesn't make it reality.

You've suggested things I don't agree with and that I do believe are harmful quite often.

Taximom talks all the time about how terrifying it was to see her child seizing with a vaccine reactions. I'm sure it was. I've seen enough seizures to know the feeling of helplessness and fear, and I wasn't even watching my kid seizing.

Every time we talk about vaccine risks, Taxi unleashes a tirade at anyone who doesn't demonstrate proper respect for the terrifying, damaging nature of her son's vaccine reaction.

Interesting.

You have never suggested that anything should be done about minimizing or preventing vaccine reactions. In fact, you've been very clear that you believe that most parents who report severe vaccine reactions are over-reacting, making it up, etc (which is exactly how I was treated by medical personnel until my child was actually examined by someone who had previously seen a vaccine reaction):

Quote:

Originally Posted by stik

Vaccination reactions are very rare, and children who show no sign of vaccine reactions are, in fact, not having vaccine reactions. Some of the things that have been described as vaccine reactions on MDC (classics include a strange faraway look, twitching during sleep, and many others) are better explained by other factors (examples include peeing, an REM cycle, and many others). The risks of an adverse reaction to vaccines are dramatically smaller than the risks of the diseases they prevent. Vaccines are contraindicated in specific and limited circumstances, such as for individuals with allergies to vaccine ingredients, and people with family and/or personal histories of auto-immune disorders, vax reactions, and certain other health conditions that are really not very common at all.

Vaccines absolutely SHOULD be contraindicated in individuals with family and/or personal histories of autoimmune disorders--individuals with such histories are barred from taking part in vaccine safety studies--but they're not. See the CDC pink book.

Let me put it this way: Suppose I suggested that all newborns should be injected with a high dose of thimerosol because I believed it to be not only harmless, but beneficial. In this hypothetical situation, how would you feel about me?

Well, let see…..

Many pro-vaxxer have defended potentially giving thimerosal to pregnant women vis a vis the flu shot, which crosses the placenta….

So that analogy isn't working for you, Bokonon. Thanks for sharing your feelings.

Kathy's suggestion implies a high degree of callousness towards my children and others like them. While I know that Kathy is unlikely to be effective in making public policy, I'm not going to let it pass unremarked, in this thread on the case for vaccination, that anti-vaxxers on MDC have seemed incredibly willing to throw other people's children under the bus of late. If there is to be any hope of civil conversation between the factions on this issue, anti-vaxxers should, at the very least, sympathize with pro-vaxxers' concerns about consequences of diseases.

Mainly, though, I think it would be nice if the people who think that my kids should be repeatedly exposed to preventable diseases that would be REALLY, REALLY dangerous for them? Would go talk about it in their special dedicated forum for people who agree that measles is better than vaccination, where I will not run into it. *This thread* is about the case for vaccination, and part of that case is that VPDs have serious consequences for some people.

So that analogy isn't working for you, Bokonon. Thanks for sharing your feelings.

Kathy's suggestion implies a high degree of callousness towards my children and others like them. While I know that Kathy is unlikely to be effective in making public policy, I'm not going to let it pass unremarked, in this thread on the case for vaccination, that anti-vaxxers on MDC have seemed incredibly willing to throw other people's children under the bus of late. If there is to be any hope of civil conversation between the factions on this issue, anti-vaxxers should, at the very least, sympathize with pro-vaxxers' concerns about consequences of diseases.

Mainly, though, I think it would be nice if the people who think that my kids should be repeatedly exposed to preventable diseases that would be REALLY, REALLY dangerous for them? Would go talk about it in their special dedicated forum for people who agree that measles is better than vaccination, where I will not run into it. *This thread* is about the case for vaccination, and part of that case is that VPDs have serious consequences for some people.

I think you are repeatedly putting words into Kathy's mouth and assuming an intent that simply is not there.

You refuse to think of vaccine-injured children as anything but anecdotes, but are imploring the community to consider your children as a reason for widespread, mandatory vaccination. Honestly, the hypocrisy is mindboggling.

Kathy's suggestion implies a high degree of callousness towards my children and others like them. While I know that Kathy is unlikely to be effective in making public policy, I'm not going to let it pass unremarked, in this thread on the case for vaccination, that anti-vaxxers on MDC have seemed incredibly willing to throw other people's children under the bus of late. If there is to be any hope of civil conversation between the factions on this issue, anti-vaxxers should, at the very least, sympathize with pro-vaxxers' concerns about consequences of diseases.

Throwing other peoples children under the bus... What about children who have had vaccine reactions? Where is the compassion for them? There isn't any - it is all about denial and dismissal.

Civility is a two way street.

Mainly, though, I think it would be nice if the people who think that my kids should be repeatedly exposed to preventable diseases that would be REALLY, REALLY dangerous for them? Would go talk about it in their special dedicated forum for people who agree that measles is better than vaccination, where I will not run into it. *This thread* is about the case for vaccination, and part of that case is that VPDs have serious consequences for some people.

There is obviously some baggage around the fact the non-vaxxing forum exist while a pro-vax forum does not. Well, go friggin ask for one! I will abide by its regulations. It is lame that the person who brings it up the most is a non-vaxxer (moi). You cannot have it both ways - you (general you) should not whine about the existence of the non-vax forum while simultaneously refusing to ask for your own forum.

Taximom, I have always respected your feelings about your children's vaccine reactions. I don't agree with your assertion that your ds's vaccine reaction caused his autism, but I have never denied that he had a serious reaction. Per your report in several threads, your son had a lengthy seizure. While febrile seizures are not considered severe reactions by the medical establishment, they are usually not lengthy. If my kid did that (or, frankly, if my kid had a brief febrile seizure) we would be in the ER screaming for medical attention. I agree that what your son had was a serious vaccine reaction. You probably haven't noticed this respect, because I also have found you to be cruel to other posters, including me, and choose to avoid talking to you whenever possible. But you are the reason why, every single time I talk about who should be vaccinated, I wind up writing a run-on sentence full of caveats about people who shouldn't vaccinate. I don't think vaccination should be mandatory, and I don't think all children should be vaccinated. I was really certain that I had seen something from the CDC on not vaccinating people with auto-immune disorders, but if I am in error on that, I think it's what the policy SHOULD be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taximom5

Interesting.

You have never suggested that anything should be done about minimizing or preventing vaccine reactions. In fact, you've been very clear that you believe that most parents who report severe vaccine reactions are over-reacting, making it up, etc (which is exactly how I was treated by medical personnel until my child was actually examined by someone who had previously seen a vaccine reaction):

Quote:

Originally Posted by stik

Vaccination reactions are very rare, and children who show no sign of vaccine reactions are, in fact, not having vaccine reactions. Some of the things that have been described as vaccine reactions on MDC (classics include a strange faraway look, twitching during sleep, and many others) are better explained by other factors (examples include peeing, an REM cycle, and many others). The risks of an adverse reaction to vaccines are dramatically smaller than the risks of the diseases they prevent. Vaccines are contraindicated in specific and limited circumstances, such as for individuals with allergies to vaccine ingredients, and people with family and/or personal histories of auto-immune disorders, vax reactions, and certain other health conditions that are really not very common at all.

The reports of severe reactions are the ones I trust. it's the reports of minor reactions I'm skeptical about.

I think you are repeatedly putting words into Kathy's mouth and assuming an intent that simply is not there.

You refuse to think of vaccine-injured children as anything but anecdotes, but are imploring the community to consider your children as a reason for widespread, mandatory vaccination. Honestly, the hypocrisy is mindboggling.

I've said that I'm grateful to others who vaccinate because it helps increase herd immunity which benefits my children. This is not the same as imploring others to vaccinate.

So that analogy isn't working for you, Bokonon. Thanks for sharing your feelings.

Kathy's suggestion implies a high degree of callousness towards my children and others like them. While I know that Kathy is unlikely to be effective in making public policy, I'm not going to let it pass unremarked, in this thread on the case for vaccination, that anti-vaxxers on MDC have seemed incredibly willing to throw other people's children under the bus of late. If there is to be any hope of civil conversation between the factions on this issue, anti-vaxxers should, at the very least, sympathize with pro-vaxxers' concerns about consequences of diseases.

Mainly, though, I think it would be nice if the people who think that my kids should be repeatedly exposed to preventable diseases that would be REALLY, REALLY dangerous for them? Would go talk about it in their special dedicated forum for people who agree that measles is better than vaccination, where I will not run into it. *This thread* is about the case for vaccination, and part of that case is that VPDs have serious consequences for some people.

Oh, I get it. You're making a joke out of this whole issue, pretending to be all upset about "anti-vax callousness" towards people whose children have predisposition to complications, when you treated my own similar complaints "from the other side" with utter contempt and derision.

Well.

I guess if you think that that makes a case for vaccination, and you think it's funny on top of it...

I guess it is pretty funny that you say, "anti-vaxxers should, at the very least, sympathize with pro-vaxxers' concerns about consequences of diseases," when the pro-vaxxers have absolutely no sympathy for anyone's concerns about consequences of vaccines.

I have stood in the middle of the two-way street that is civility for a long time. I have been hit by traffic. People in cars are yelling at me because I don't want my kids to get mumps. My baggage right now is about EUGENICS. It's about the assertions that:

- "We" would be better off "as a society" if mumps and rubella were common

- Measles is good for "us"

- Unvaccinated children are "better" than vaccinated ones.

Kathy, while you've denied that you mean my child any harm, you keep returning to this thread with no explanation of how your proposal about mumps and rubella is supposed to benefit children like mine, or even how they will be protected from the dangers it will expose them to.

I didn't want a pro-vax only forum last week, but I sure as hell do now.

Oh, I get it. You're making a joke out of this whole issue, pretending to be all upset about "anti-vax callousness" towards people whose children have predisposition to complications, when you treated my own similar complaints "from the other side" with utter contempt and derision.

Well.

I guess if you think that that makes a case for vaccination, and you think it's funny on top of it...

I guess it is pretty funny that you say, "anti-vaxxers should, at the very least, sympathize with pro-vaxxers' concerns about consequences of diseases," when the pro-vaxxers have absolutely no sympathy for anyone's concerns about consequences of vaccines.

I'm really upset about anti-vaccination callousness. I respect your complaints, I just haven't bothered to talk about it because your contempt for me has been clearly evident since you insulted my children in January.